Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:39, 6 October 2009

This is Jehochman's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Please leave a new message. I generally prefer to keep conversations on the page where they start. Please follow Strunk & White's advice, "Omit needless words!" Unblocks: If I block a user, any administrator is free to refactor the block unless I have specifically requested contacting me first. I may remove comments posted here if no response is needed, or if I respond elsewhere.

Here is your own personal invitation to look into this

• Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Child of Midnight, in effect, spits on the sidewalk and gets blocked. LuLu of the Lotus Eaters edit wars, violates 3RR, runs down the civility level at the Acorn page in his edit summaries (a pattern of behavior he's followed in the past, at the Barack Obama page, for instance) and none of the admins or editors commenting now at ArbCom were commenting back then. Admins coddle one side and hobble the other. It's as clear as day. Some of these diffs are the final comment on discussions.

Now, don't give me piddling wikilawyerish fine points about how no single admin is required to do everything or how different admins have different standards. The fact is that every admin could see the AN/I thread. The fact is that there is no alternate way of interpreting WP:3RR other than that LuLu violated it. The fact is that when one side was complained about, nothing happened. In a clear case. In the CoM case, less clear, admins fall all over themselves to block, without hesitation. Do you have the nerve to tell me that this doesn't look like galling hypocrisy?

I'm not asking you to take any action. I'm asking you to recognize that there is a problem here. -- Noroton (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Worth looking over. -- Noroton (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My 2c:

• When filing reports you need to take care of accuracy. For instance, above, you linked to acorn, not the actual article in question. This creates the appearance that you are playing fast and loose with the evidence. An admin who sees that is less likely to dig in further.
• You come across as a partisan. Your focus is on tipping the article towards a more conservative viewpoint. LoL seems to be going the other direction. We don't achieve NPOV via a battle of partisans. If instead you focus on an objective like improving the quality grade of the article, and seek outside input from editors across the political spectrum, you are likely to get better results.
• LoL appears to have issues with ownership of that article. It appears to be badly slanted. Most people don't know about ACORN except for the recent video scandal. My opinion as an editor is that the scandal should be reported in the lead. If I'm looking up ACORN, I probably want to know what's going on with that scandal, and expect to find information near the beginning.
• You've reported as 3RR violations incidents that are really something else, WP:OWN violations. Admins looking at 3RR situations tend to have blinders on. You need to take the time to document ownership and report extreme cases at the appropriate venue WP:ANI, and for lesser cases start a request for comments on article content.

I hope this advice helps. Jehochman 09:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't help much. I responded to your last comment on my talk page in detail, and that addresses the more important aspects, but here's a response to what you said here:

• I don't see how a simple link problem like Acorn (vs. ACORN, confusingly) can create an appearance of me playing fast and loose with any actual facts. It's a typo-level problem like a grammar mistake. In a clear-cut case, it shouldn't make a difference.
• If I come across as a partisan it's because anyone complaining about any political faction pushing its POV on an article will come across the same way: The complaint about NPOV will always center around the grievance that one POV is being overemphasized in an article while the opposing POV is underemphasized or ignored. Almost no one who shares the POV being pushed thinks the matter is important enough to complain about. That someone has a personal POV is irrelevant, and it should be irrelevant that someone wants that POV in the article. Since, really, we all do. The only relevant thing is how well the article reflects the state of opinion among the most reliable sources. That's usually a hard question to answer, and if you aren't already interested in the topic, it takes some work to answer it. Unless you're willing to do that work (and who could really blame you for not being willing? Life is short), you (as an outside admin or editor) should be agnostic about who is POV pushing and who isn't. The assumption I'm being partisan -- and that's what it is on your part, because you have no evidence -- is really a way to avoid the nub of my complaint because acknowledging the facts of it is uncomfortable for you. It's uncomfortable because it shows what a problem Misplaced Pages has with enforcement of behavioral policies. I go into more detail about that in my response to you on my talk page. If you actually look into the two or three edits I made ont he ACORN page and the comment or two I left on the talk page there, IIRC, they may indicate I want one side better represented in the article, but that doesn't indicate POV pushing any more than it indicates a desire for a good NPOV encyclopedia article. You know that to turn a POV passage into an NPOV one you have to lean in the other direction. That's good, nonpartisan editing. So don't assume when you don't know the facts. What isn't partisan and what admins, including you, can do relatviely easily, is not ignore valid complaints about clear behavioral problems such as 3RR and ongoing patterns of incivility. That's the nub of my complaint. And when you do it with one side, enforce policy with the same level of energy with the other side. That didn't happen, which is why I commented at ArbCom. You haven't addressed that, even though it's the center of my complaint.
• Your third bullet, I agree with, of course. It's pretty common POV editing and the bias there is pretty garden-variety. As I said on my talk page, LuLu doesn't seem to stand out much more than several other editors, but I haven't looked closely. I concentrated on LuLu in my complaint because he was a bit worse than the others and I knew he had a history of the same things. But he doesn't really seem much worse.
• Your fourth bullet is intriguing. I thought I did just what you suggested I do, in both of the 3RR reports. Clear violations, clearly identified, and showing WP:OWN. I'll review my complaints again when I have time, but I don't get what you find wrong with them. Nothing in WP:3RR indicates a revert needs to be simple or remove information in the immediate preceding edit. In fact, I think it specifically states the opposite, which I quoted at AN/I. I thought WP:OWN was obvious, and violations of edit warring don't need to reach the same volume as 3RR itself. How could I have shown this more effectively in my reports? How am I supposed to know how to do this if I'm not familiar with it already and I'm following what's said in the relevant policies and guidelines? I've seen comments in the past at ANI where editors have been told to go to 3RR/N. Frankly, once I did take it to AN/I it shouldn't matter where I took it to first, should it? It could have been dealt with if admins were willing to do so. Admins at AN/I address the real behavior violations all the time and could have done so here. I don't understand how I made that more difficult or what more I could have done to establish WP:OWN. Really -- how do you go about establishing that in a different way than I did? I'll reread WP:OWN, but my impression is that it's more amorphous than 3RR and that kind of complaint involves asking admins to put in more time looking into it. How do you pick and choose what evidence to put into a WP:OWN complaint? It seems to me that that's a harder thing to prove than 3RR and edit warring. I'd really like your advice on that. -- Noroton (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

You and Jennavecia seem intent on having a personal discussion about personal failures. Please keep it off ANI. --Tznkai (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you should leave the comments that were made. I will not add to them further. If you remove my concerns about Jennavecia's behavior, I may take the matter elsewhere rather than letting it die. You may also leave her concerns about me, in fairness. Jehochman 14:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that on balance your conversation was distracting from the core issue and helpful to no one, the least of all the undertow whose situation was caught up in a fight on admin character between two admins - If you wish to continue your concerns with Jennavecia try her talk page, an RfC/U and/or the recall process. Even in the latter case, I suggest waiting until the wound is a bit less raw.--Tznkai (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

She apparently hates my guts, for unknown reasons, so talking is unlikely to be helpful. My experience with the recall process has been very poor. Last time I had an admin recalled (47 signed when 6 were required), the admin refused to step down. No thank you. My concerns are now on the record. Thank you for leaving them there. Jehochman 15:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Who was the admin you tried to recall? I am also wondering about a comparison of this situation to that of the Arbcom member who was caught with an undisclosed history and some socking. Wasn't it pretty well established that some Arbs know about that history? In fact, we seem to encourage the creating of new accounts with clean histories and yet there is shock when histories are uncovered. The whole thing seems kind of surreal to me. I support more transparency and accountability, but other editors and admins have rejected the idea of encouraging reform and leniency instead of evasion. The unwritten rule seems to be that as long as the new account avoids drama all is forgiven. And only a skilled politician and MMPORG player can stay out of trouble all together on here. There are too many complicated POV pushing cabals and alliances. And admin interventions are often sought to win content disputes. So it's a mess all around. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I now see that an admin should not have knowing supported a sock puppet's RFA - I often disagree with you but I think you are absolutely correct here and I'm astonished people are arguing against you William M. Connolley (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is an issue to clarify in policy. Administrators are not required to do anything, but they are required to refrain from knowingly aiding and abetting those who are doing something wrong. Failure to abide by the expected ethical standards may result in loss of administrator access. Jehochman 16:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please pardon me for butting in (I've watched your talk page since the AN/I that led to Tombe's page ban). Is there really any question that it is not OK for an admin to knowingly support a sock's RfA or other wrongdoing??? Isn't there already policy language to the effect that an admin is held to the highest behavioral standards? The civility RfC revealed a fairly widespread belief that admins routinely apply a double standard that favors other admins and well established editors. I am on record that I do not share that view. However, there are isolated instances where some admins are unduly lenient toward misbehavior by other admins (comparable to the more universal culture of real world cops not "ratting out" cops) or by certain favored misbehaving editors. It does not take very many of those incidents to feed a perception that this is the rule rather than the exception (that is one of the prime bases of prejudice).

I once stumbled into an incident where editor was blocked for willfully vandalizing that day's main page FA (I spotted the vandalism and followed up) because he was angry that his RfA (his second or third) didn't pass. He apologized, blamed the stress of losing the RfA, and promised not to do it again. This block was lifted (which is OK, although sitting out 12–24 hours might have been more equitable) and his block was expunged from his record (I didn't even know that was possible) as were his vandalism edits. I thought that was unjustifiable. If I vandalized some obscure page out of pique, or perhaps the user page of someone who made very offensive remarks, I would be blocked and the block would not be expunged from my record, despite my having a clean record (the would-be admin's record wasn't clean). That is how it should be, and how it should have been for the disappointed would-be admin.

In my opinion, it would be in the long term interest of administrators, as a group, to bend over backward to avoid any appearance of favoritism to fellow admins or their cronies. Enforcement is more difficult if there is a general perception that admins unfairly favor their own—and the perception is more important than the reality (I don't mean an isolated, unjustifiable assumption of bias like Tombe's). That means by holding admins to a higher standard of conduct than ordinary editors, just as experienced editors (like me) should be held to a higher standard than newbies, who understandably don't know our policies and guidelines.

Please pardon the length of this essay. I didn't anticipate this length when I started typing. Finell (Talk) 18:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I have put a summary of the current state of play into Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Obligations. We need to talk about nepotism, and how to prevent it, on a policy level. It may be better to speak in general than to pick on a particular user. Jehochman 19:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Hope you have a peaceful day (or evening?). Finell (Talk) 22:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I was waiting for Risker's opinion on whether an RfArb or an RfC should be the next step before I filed an identical case. This absolutely needed to be done. Karanacs (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Russavia

Re your topic ban of Radeksz from Russavia, shouldn't that be extended to all of the named respondents in the Arbcom case? Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I am a minimalist. Until somebody else causes trouble, there is no need for action. Jehochman 15:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. I'm sure Russavia will report any harassment at AN/I if it happens. Mjroots (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope Jehochman won't mind me posting here. I see no reason to extend anything to other participants in the case at this point, so long as the Arbcase is running. This goes to both me and others. Cheers, --Russavia 15:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

C:SD and NewPages need patrolling. BLPs need protection from libel, or even just categorization. Material needs to be sourced. Neutrality must be fought for. There's stuff to do out there. Given that your last 100 edits have been drama-only, would you please consider actually working on the encyclopedia? JamieS93 17:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, did somebody suggest you post here? Please look through more of my 24,000+ edits before you jump to conclusion. Check out the featured articles I've worked on, most recently Gamma-ray burst. The current one in progress is 2009 influenza pandemic. It is not "drama" to expose and attempt to correct wrongdoing that threatens dozens of articles. When a group of editors work together to subvert consensus and deceive the community, that is a serious problem. Jehochman 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

'It is not "drama" to expose and attempt to correct wrongdoing that threatens dozens of articles' - which articles are threatened here? "When a group of editors work together to subvert consensus..." What consensus has been subverted? Thanks, Majorly talk 17:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please take any relevant comments to the arbitration page. It is improper to attempt to pressure people via their talk pages when there is already a perfectly good conversation going on in an appropriate dispute resolution venue. Jehochman 17:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (I just want to leave a reply here, because I didn't anticipate this section to being closed). For the record, it was nobody's suggestion: I was taking a moment to observe the undertow/Law and ArbCom situation and noticed your participation thereof.
• Look - it was probably not my place to say that, and it only caused a bit more trouble. I don't want to be a troll, and normally I never want to make unnecessary comments. TBH, aspects of this whole situation left me with some very distinct opinions/feelings. If it were my choice again, I wouldn't have left any note here at all; although I still hope we can remember what this website is about and use time wisely. Trust and adminship is a big issue, indeed; I get where you guys are coming from. "Exposing deception" is good if it's gone about reasonably, and it's probably best now that the case has officially been submitted to ArbCom. I'm not sure if I understand "threatens dozens of articles" since this is more of an editors issue rather than articles, though. But some of the extraneous mess has wasted people's time. Like I said above, that list of tasks is our main goal. I'd rather not comment at the RfAR, btw - just the same, I'm leaving this convo at rest. If you'd ever like to do some relatively easy but purposeful work, WP:BLPPOTENTIAL is that way, and I think I'll head in that direction now. :) Best wishes, JamieS93 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Jamie. I'm heading to 2009 influenza pandemic as soon as I get motivated. Jehochman 18:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic

Hi Jehochman, haven't seen you at flu pandemic for a couple of days. Besides the secondary infection of bacterial pneumonia angle, I have two sources stating that the cough caused by the swine flu virus is typically a dry cough (on discussion page). Plus jump in a help if you can. Thanks. Cool Nerd (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I WILL! Jehochman 23:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright! Cool Nerd (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your stance

You posted at RFAR today (summarized to make the comparison more blunt):

"admins ... knowing full well that the account had been used ... motivation appears to have been close friendship with the operator... I think this was a gross abuse of trust... I call upon the Committee to remove sysop access... The facts are clear cut... Do we tolerate subversion of our policies by popular insiders?"

1. Was this your view 2 months ago, in relation to the evidence of concealment of sock-puppetry by an admin, at this case?
2. Please reconcile your strong view on admin socking concealment (above and today) in the case of Jennavecia and GlassCobra, with your dismissal of identical or more serious concerns at the RFC.

In three ways worse: Geogre was an admin, not merely applying to be one; he was actively stacking and abusing, whereas the undertow had behaved well for months; and the stacking directly benefited the concealing party, whereas the_undertow's did not.

FT2  00:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I said, I don't think the subject of this RFC will feel that there has been good faith attempt to resolve this dispute. RFC is not to be used for personal feuds, and many experienced users are aware that FT2 and Bishonen don't get along. It would be better to seek informal mediation of the Concerns, and if an RFC is then needed, it would be better to have somebody besides FT2 certify. As it stands now, this page is likely to generate more heat than light. As for Geogre socking and everything else, I took no position. Furthermore, Geogre was not engaging in block evasion, nor was he previously de-admined, nor did Bishonen nominate or support him at RFA. The situations are not parallel at all. As I've said all along, admins have no obligation to report; they have an obligation not to falsify or support somebody's attempt at deception. Whether Geogre was socking is not even something I clearly understood. Probably others didn't understand either. I did not know Utgard Loki was Geogre. I'm square; people don't let me in on any sort of juicy gossip.

Had Law not engaged in nepotism by unblocking his mate CoM out of process, none of this would have come to the surface. But Law did that, very foolishly, drew attention and got caught. Then Jennavecia and GlassCobra were too proud to admit their errors, and Casliber had to resign. The injustice of this situation is unbearable. Jehochman 00:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

FT2 and Bishonen have a past? This I did not know. Apologies, Hochman, I'm got here stalking the conspiracy theorist FT2, and lo, I find what I forgot from the Rfc on Bish; now I recall you mentioning that. This is getting more tangled and absurd by the minute, and its due to FT2, an ex-Arb who should know better, muddying the waters with foul allegations about something from months past, trying to character smear both of us... why? To protect Lara and Glass Cobra? Seems unlikely. Vendetta because his Rfc was shot down? Seems... childish. Xavexgoem and Cirt have been above that. It must be something else; but what possible reason he has for dragging this in escapes me. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 01:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction, Jehochman. You're quoting your second post, kinda omitting the background.

Your first post at RFC at worst attempted to mislead the community, impede the case, and protect the party, and at best they were irreconcilably inconsistent with what evidence says you actually knew and believed. You knew conclusively most of your statement points were not so. You did not speak to the evidence, posted knowingly misleading negative/negative-sounding statements represented as authoritative fact, and omitted all aspects of your own positive knowledge.

After I asked you in effect "wtf", you replaced the blatant assertions with the post you quoted, which was superficially more reasonable but still improperly slanted for any kind of communal review. Careful review shows it still contradicted the evidence on key points, and also omitted any semblance of balance on aspects you actually knew beyond doubt, from your own knowledge.

Admins are expected to undertake their role at dispute resolution with care, impartially, and to helpfully inform the community with insight on the evidence, if they choose to involve themselves in a case.. You did none of these.

You admitted separately (exact quote posted if permission given) that the evidence was actually reasonable and might indeed even be 100% correct. I do not pretend to understand these actions.

In either case you also treated with dismissal, the matter you now say is so wrong (in a lesser case) as to require desysopping. Why?

My questions #1 and #2 stand. In light of the present matter, please answer them. FT2  01:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You know very well I amended my opinion. Choosing an intermediate diff that was soon changed is not an honest way to deal. Please, don't bring feuds here. I'm not a minion of Bishonen. Your disagreements with her should not be transferred to me. Otherwise, I am not going to respond to your assumptions of bad faith and presumptions about what I knew or thought. You do not have access to my mind; stop making assumptions that are wrong and tainted. Jehochman 02:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, what does this have to do with the current case? Nothing. I actually AGF'd and thought you might actually have a concern, FT2; but that is rapidly fading at the increasing evidence you're just trying to pick a fight and drag up an old, dead Rfc from two months ago where you didn't get your way. Your vendetta is showing; I suggest you move on to new venues and new pursuits. I would think FT2 would be ashamed of muddying the waters with his sour grapes, rather than making lame accusations far past their expiration date. Hochman, I apologize for butting in; I'm done with this nonsense. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 02:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Back then the things you obviously knew and the things said, did raise concerns. For example, you did not disclose your knowledge in a balanced manner. You withheld positive knowledge, posted only negative material. You swapped "X is bad" for "some users may think X is bad". You admitted you didn't read the evidence. You didn't respect that concerns were raised by multiple highly experienced users (not just myself) and in fact didn't seem to notice others had concerns even though diffs were given.

Today you posted an RFAR based on a very strong stance, a stance that you didn't appear to consider important enough to consider worth attention just 2 months ago in a recent RFC.

The striking dismissal then and switch to a strong "must-desysop!" now, is today identically mirrored by the same admin both times, who both times posted directly after you, and who also appears to be unwilling to say if their stance was the same or has changed (and is posting unhelpful and ominous posts on this thread).

I'm asking your stance on admins concealing socking to be clear where you really stand, and to check explicitly whether you would hold the same view in all such cases, and regardless of party. You can see why that might be relevant, given you just filed an RFAR on the subject against two admins. I hope that explains it. A quick and definitive answer to the first post, clarifying exactly whether your views then and now are the same on the point of principle, would be good. FT2  04:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Begging the question

There is not inconsistency, other than what you imagine to see by assuming the worst.

I have always said that friends are not required to rat on friends. My objection is that friends (esp admins) may not lie to cover for friends. It is a lie to knowingly nominate a sock for adminship and not disclose that highly relevant fact.

What lie occured with Geogre, other than Geogre carelessly crossing the stream with an alternative account? Show me a diff of Bishonen lying? You can't. Please take your feuds with her elsewhere. Jehochman 10:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your statement: "It is a lie to knowingly nominate a sock for adminship and not disclose that highly relevant fact".

I and others have a concern that a similar "lie" took place a little while ago (admin concealing socking by a wiki friend to admin's advantage in a dispute). You may disagree that this is what happened (that's your right) but you didn't check the evidence nor report your own knowledge in a fair balanced manner in the discussion. You claim a "feud" that never got evidenced (and that you elsewhere say that you know actually doesn't exist, but in public you allege it does). You ignored all evidence but you're sure nothing was done wrong. You ignored that it was several experienced admins with concerns, not just one.

So I am not asking your view on the past case. I'm simply asking about your stance on this aspect of the RFAR you just filed, given the past incident: was your stance 2 months ago (that admins who knowingly conceal socking should be desysopped) as strongly held then as now? Yes? or No? FT2  14:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I will answer this question when you stop beating your wife. You are mis-stating my position and then demanding a yes/no answer. I've told you already to stop begging the question. Look up what that means. Jehochman 14:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't stated your position on the question, though, have I. You can say "yes it's the same", "no it's changed"; neither is assumed in the question. Of course it may lead to a concern over consistency of conduct given that stance -- but that's something you may or may not wish to explain.

I'm after a straight answer about what you feel then and now, if it were to come to light that an admin concealed socking, and clarity whether your view's the same or changed since that case. A straightforward question. FT2  14:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have always said that friends are not required to rat on friends. My objection is that friends (esp admins) may not lie to cover for friends. It is a lie to knowingly nominate a sock for adminship and not disclose that highly relevant fact. That's my position. You seem to think Bishonen did wrong (misprison of felony). As volunteers nobody is required to act, except perhaps functionaries and arbitrators. There is a difference between seeing and not recognizing, or seeing and not acting versus knowing and affirmatively covering up. Big difference. Jehochman 15:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We may differ on whether the subject of that RFC "knew about admin socking and affirmatively covered up". As you didn't bother to read the evidence, your view is probably uninformed, and I'm not asking what you feel about that person or case. I'm asking about the principles you have on it and their consistency over time:

If an admin had "known about admin socking and affirmatively covered it up" at that time (which would clearly need to be well evidenced), would you back then have felt as strongly about the principle as you said at RFAR, that that admin should be desysopped? FT2  15:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

FT2, you seem to be trying to determine a current issue here by crude oversimplification and a contrived dualism. The place to resolve this is in community discussion of the current circumstances. As for consistency between then and now, at that stage you seemed to consider it to be wrong for an admin to allow admin sock-puppetry of a friend to stand undisclosed, and felt that high standards of conduct are integral to adminship. If you think these standards are being met by the conduct of the admins who knowingly nominated and canvassed for the adminship of a sockpuppet of a friend who had been subjected to community sanctions, I'm very disappointed in you. . . dave souza, talk 15:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

FT, I see the George situation as very different. I didn't know Geogre was Utgard, but if I'd crossed his path I'd have known instantly, because he was making no attempt to hide, and Geogre is a very distinctive writer. His sin was thoughtlessness. He wasn't looking at the situation from the point of view of those not in the know. But he wasn't banned, hadn't been desysopped, didn't try to gain tools for Utgard.

In the Undertow situation, we have a user banned for harassment, and desysopped for some other reason, who had been behaving oddly anyway. His return to adminship, and his lying at RfA, is facilitated by at least one Arb, at least one functionary, and numerous admins. And why? Because they were friends on IRC/Wikipedia Review. In addition, one of the facilitators tried to get oversight, and the Arb did nothing to stop her.

That is serious corruption (well, it's serious insofar as anything on WP is). It's not comparable to Geogre's goofing around. SlimVirgin 16:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In the present RFAR, I certainly have deep concerns that I've expressed at that page. Whether very bad misjudgment or willful dismissal of community expectations (the former potentially excusable, the latter far worse) I've said my view on it.

The same admins who presented and first endorsed the case, with extremely strong wording how any knowing concealment of admin socking should be desysopped, are the exact same two who (together) stepped in to impede a discussion on an identical principle and concern, raised not just by myself but by others too. In that case it seems both took actions whose effect was to prevent any productive discussion.

What do these two admins really believe about admins who abet or knowingly conceal socking? Are their strong words at RFAR real or sincere? Even more seriously, do they truly believe their words, or does it depend on who the party is (noting: each of them defended their behavior back then by personality-based argument not factual evidence).

So I asked each to clarify their stance. That was my sole question. Each could have answered in very few words: "Yes, I believed then what I have said now"... or "yes I believe completely that knowing concealment should be desysoppable but I don't know if that was the case back then", or even "No, my view was different back then". No tricks, only straight answers sought.

But both are evading which (as you'll remember from our own dialogs last year) tends to encourage re-asking until an answer is given. You did the same then as I am now, and I don't blame you for it either, it was fair even if discomfiting. One expects answers from admins whose conduct is a concern. These are my concerns. I'd like answers that directly answer the question asked, not some question I didn't ask. FT2  22:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

CoM

I'm still confused by the Law / The undertow / CoM connection. You say Had Law not engaged in nepotism by unblocking his mate CoM out of process - what evidence is there for them being "mates"? I don't know; people have said various things; CoM has made ambiguous denials. Is this another one of those "open secrets" that aren't? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That's another open secret. Not all the evidence is public. I believe the unblock of CoM was politically motivated and not justified on the merits. Jehochman 10:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well is *any* of the evidence public? If so I'd like to be pointed at it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You have to look at the editing history of both. They appear to be part of the same far right POV group. CoM is topic banned from Obama. The undertow was de-admined over some sort of related issue. I know what, but I'm not going to say here. Jehochman 10:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I've highly respected your general efforts for admins to keep integrity, but please do not spread such false assessment to the desysoped former admin. There is no "open secret" about such the bogus allegation. Although I strongly feel disgusted by the whole lying by User:Law and his "admins friends", you should not mix non-existent things with the matter. I don't know what political stance Law has, but they often edit on Bacon or food-related articles that is in my interest as a WP:FOOD member. The "Bacon Cabal" has been promoted by DYK and many others, so you should retract such false accusation and insinuation that CoM and Law shares political agendas, so they collided for Sandstein's absurd blocking for one month. --Caspian blue 20:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually all the evidence is public. I had no off wiki communication with Law prior his unblocking me except to wish him well in August when he announced his retirement, and I had no interactions on or off-wiki, nor was I even aware of existence of an account named The Undertow (as far as I can recall). So if you gentlement care to correct your aspersions and smears I would be appreciate it. The only POV I push is NPOV. Check it out! Good stuff. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I just checked my e-mail history and I was mistaken. I had been in contact with Law via e-mail when I sent him a note to wish him well when he retired at the end of August. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, CoM, I will strike any other incorrect statements you point out or that I find. Thank you for the correction. Jehochman 23:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I am also not part of any "far right" POV group. I'm not really part of any group and am a strong opponent of cabalism and teaming up. Going solo has been tough, especially in contentious areas where there is cabalism and coordination by POV pushing editors, but I try to lead by example and hold myself to high standards. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Help desk software

Hi, I saw your helpful suggestion in the discussion about an arb's recent apology. Is such software readily available in s simple form that would run on a fairly ordinary pc? 'Cos it would be useful to me in my other life as a real person. DuncanHill (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This search is a place to start: google:Open+Source+Help+Desk+Software. You probably need to install it on a web server. Any reasonable developer should be able to set something up for you. The basic idea is that a user enters a request for help, and they get an immediate email response with a ticket number. At any time they can enter follow up information which gets attached to the ticket. On the back end you have an admin page where you can see open requests, set the status, add follow up notes, and eventually close requests when they are solved. This sort of system ensures that nothing falls through the cracks, and it provides visibility to all participants, not just the one recipient. Jehochman 12:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - may be a bit more than I actually need at the moment, but could be very helpful in the future. I agree with you that it could be a great help to Arbs. DuncanHill (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

For personal use consider Basecamp (software). It's not exactly help desk software, but it can be useful for tracking issues and deadlines. Jehochman 12:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again - I will have a chat with a friend who knows how to set up these things and see what we can do. DuncanHill (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We use Spiceworks at the office here -- seems to work pretty well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

References

You say you have software that will generate a reference from most web pages?

Want.

It.

) -Pete (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a Firefox add-on called Cite4Wiki. Somebody created it based on an earlier tool I created. Will rumage around for the url when I get to my desk. Try Googling meanwhile. Jehochman 20:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Very cool. Found it on google, will fool around with it a bit. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

'Twas me

I was still sorting out the sordid details of where things when wrong with Vandenberg before I had to go to bed and then work.

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Statement_by_Keegan

Let me know if that does not satisfy your questions or concerns behind my methodology. Keegan (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not concerned at all. Thank you for your contributions. Jehochman 21:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

EE arbitration

Heading changed by Jehochman 14:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I regret your comment at the arbitration. Your misinterpretation and subsequent unfortunate mischaracterization of my "rhetoric", coupled with your earlier advices to Sandstein to have a spot of tea and come back later when things blow over, indicate to me you're emotionally involved in the proceedings. That's neither good nor bad, I rather suspect there is a good deal of "emotional involvement" on the part of all concerned. (Except Sandstein.) I am just making you aware.
   Please do not take this as public lecturing. I normally make it my practice to offer such advice in private—however, I have no wish for further misconstruing of the intent of off-Wiki communication simply beause it is off-Wiki. Editors may find that WP:GLASNOST is not all it's cracked up to be. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have read the above. Thank you for your thoughts. Jehochman 14:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please link

your proposal here. Thanks KillerChihuahuaAdvice 16:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would like to check it out, but I'm not sure where it's located. Thanks, hmwith☮ 16:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Meta_Request:_Administrators_aiding_a_sock_puppet_at_RFA. This process would serve everyone, including the "accused". They deserve a clear up or down result: either remove their bits or clear them of wrongdoing. They should not be left in limbo. Jehochman 17:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Flu pandemic GA

From what I can tell, the only major thing remaining that the reviewer brought up is to report what the CDC did in the course of "tightening up" any "gaps" in the health system over the summer. (If a reply is necessary, please do so on my talk.) --Cybercobra (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Request clarification

Hi, you make an interesting and detailed proposal here: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case.

The process sounds like it would be effective, but it might take a great deal of ArbCom's resources, etc. I don't think that this sort of process would be a great precedent for future events in itself.

But I'm wondering, are you suggesting that this could be a first step in establishing a community-conducted process for admin-bit recall? If so, it sounds promising, but I'd like to see your thinking spelled out a little more detail in the proposal. -Pete (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be the basis for future community de-adminship proceedings. ArbCom has always said that they want to have the final word. So be it. There are two types of de-adminship requests: 1/ abuse of tools, which is easily handled by existing arbitration procedures, and 2/ loss of community trust. ArbCom can only gauge loss of trust by actually asking the community for input. RFC tends to be a free wheeling process, prone to drama, ambiguity and open endedness. By having ArbCom as a gatekeeper before the process starts, a fixed time limit, and ArbCom to judge the results upon conclusion, I think we solve a great many problems. Please do help write up a proposal! It is very important that this process can only be triggered if ArbCom finds that there is a reasonable doubt. We don't want admins being harassed by frivolous claims against them. Jehochman 00:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA

Hi Jehochman,

I see that you are supporting a desysopping now after suggesting a text of motion on administrator professionalism on my talk page. Can you please clarify you position? Thanks. -- FayssalF - 15:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have ambivalent feelings. On the one hand I would very much like to forgive people and set standards going forward. On the other hand I am concerned that: 1/ ArbCom cannot make policy, and 2/ we are being played the fools. In particular Jennavecia has not even posted a response (I must be beneath notice), and she has been highly defiant, stating that everything she did was correct and she would do it again. In lieu of a motion, I would favor the ArbCom-RFC hybrid that I proposed here: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Meta_Request:_Administrators_aiding_a_sock_puppet_at_RFA. A motion would be my second choice. Thank you for your time. The ArbCom has many challenges at the moment and I feel sorry to add to your burdens. Jehochman 15:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A stray comment regarding this subject: Isn't it funny that

Expecting accountability and justice = DRAMAZ

yet

False martyrdom = NOT DRAMAZ?

Auntie E. 20:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Funny that. Oh help me, help me, I'm being crucified. Jehochman 20:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Flu pandemic GA "gap-patching"

I wish you the best of luck in your research! --Cybercobra (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Misplaced Pages and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan/Fall 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan (our cool team galleries)
• Streetfilms: Wikis Take Manhattan (our awesome video)

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

148 Lafayette Street

between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

spam

I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ?  05:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock policy

Hello -- regarding WP:Sock, please see the linked poll if you had not before. To say editors "should" do this is to create an obligation that clearly does not have consensus. To disclose has been recommended at times for specific reasons, at best, but can't be stated as an obligation without broad agreement that clearly doesn't exist. In any case, please pursue the point on the talk page if you disagree. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Should is different from must. Remember that policy is descriptive of what happens, not the other way around. As a practical matter, if an editor is found to be operating more than one account, undisclosed, they are at great risk of being sanctioned for sock puppetry if they have ever accidentally "crossed the streams" of their edits. I'd rather warn people to disclose than let them get burned later. By the way, I've always felt that you were somebody's alternate account. I'm not suggesting any wrongdoing at all, but if I happen to be right, would you tell me? Thanks! Jehochman 01:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I find that a little amusing since you're not the first to suggest it, but no (I have been checkusered to high hell, so rest assured I am disclosed in any case). Call it luck that I managed to jump right into the thicket, not knowing that Misplaced Pages even had a community, as it happens. But let me clarify that I would not be involved in community discussions if I were, and if so you would be more than right to be concerned. I am very much opposed to any "crossing of streams," very broadly construed (certainly to include any second account participating in community discussions other than where is extremely transparent); in fact it is one reason why I am concerned with changing policy not to focus on this kind of deception, to explain what's wrong with it, and to be very clear that this is not allowed. I've always thought you were pretty reasonable, btw, except a few times when I haven't :)

That said, my concern here is that we should not suggest an obligation for editors who really are not being controversial at all. Maybe it's skepticism that editors violate these community norms inadvertently, but what I see is some clearly destructive behavior and some clearly non-destructive. I think improvements will come with greater clarity about what is what, but not by conflating the two, or by suggesting that back-room disclosure solves the problem. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a hard problem and none of us are completely sure how to deal with it. Thank you for your thoughts. You seem a little sockish because of your username, I think. That's probably what people pick up on. Your "voice" also seems familiar; not sure why. Happy editing, Jehochman 03:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My user name? It's a nickname in Swedish, that's also slang for "sandwich." "The sandwich," actually, since they don't separate the definite article. Did I miss something? Mackan79 (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah that's it. I probably figured you for a Bishonen sock. She's got so many I can hardly keep track of 'em all. :-) Jehochman 04:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The one who lost his sense of humor? I sent you an email, anyway, feel free to check. Mackan79 (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Ingo Jones drawing.jpg

File:Ingo Jones drawing.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Ingo Jones plan for a new palace at Whitehall 1638.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on other WP pages by Physchim62

Physchim62 has undertaken to interrupt discussion of a proposal concerning use of the one-line Edit Summary here. This interruption is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the RfC, and interferes with a normal WP process. It seems pretty clear to me that dragging the Case/Speed of light into a perfectly simple RfC is not relevant to the separate issue of how to use a one-line Edit Summary, and the phrasing "pander to the aggressive spinners of pseudoscience" is inflammatory. I believe that (i) Physchim62 should be harshly reminded to keep his gibes to himself, and (ii) this comment of his should be reverted. Brews ohare (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Littleolive oil & User:Rd232 agree with me on the nature of this contribution. Brews ohare (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, you can give them barnstars or high fives. They are not going to save you from ArbCom imposed editing restrictions. You need to listen to feedback and change your editing style for the better. Jehochman 17:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)